which video card is better

[nostro]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...127398&bop=And

The difference is between the core clock and memory clock - i don't really understand which one is better

wondering which of the 3 cards is better

 

[Washoe]

link is slow to load for me. what are the 3 cards?

 

[nostro]

you are right, the stinking link' doesn't work for me either

anyways is this card good, or do you have any better suggestions
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814125253

GIGABYTE GV-R465OC-1GI Radeon HD 4650 1GB 128-bit GDDR2 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card

 

[v8envy]

The thing to keep in mind when looking at sub-$50 video cards: the difference in performance among the flavors won't even buy a single FPS in cases you need performance. Go for the cheapest one. Failing that, go for the one with the best manufacturer/warranty.

128 bit DDR2 means you can't possibly use a gig of it productively. Anything requiring a gig of vram would crawl over such a slow straw, so you would never try to do it in the first place. See if you can buy a cheaper variant of it (or better yet, a 4670) with 512 megs instead.

 

[crisium]

I think 9500GT DDR3 is = 4650 DDR2 performance, so the 9500 DDR2 is gonna be slower. 4650 is thus the best of those 3. I'm not 100% positive tho.

 

[Qbah]

The 9400GT is the slowest by far, then there's the HD4650 and 9500GT. All 3 are not gaming cards anyway, so speed is kinda irrelevant for them.

 

[dflynchimp]

well the 4650 is the superior in pretty much every performance aspect. even if you take into account that it is advertising 64X5 ALU clusters as a 320 stream count, that's still at least twice as many as 9500GT.

The 4650 will sweep the floor with the 9500gt, read the anand review dude.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3405&p=7

benchmark is with a 4670, which has a 750 core clock compared to 600 for 4650, but even if you extrapolate the results from that the 4650 will eat the nvidia offerings below 9500

 

[Washoe]

I would probably go with the 4650 of the 3.

Check out gpureview, it might help with your comparisons, for example:
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=580&card2=574

 

[Washoe]

you know, you might want to make a push for a 4670. Check this out
ASUS Radeon HD 4670 512MB 128-bit DDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16

$44.99 after $30.00 Mail-In Rebate

 

[sellyanes]

Hi Nastro,
260 sp 192 < 4870 512MB < 4870 1GB < 260 sp 216 < 4890 1GB

That's really just in general though as depending on the game the 4870 can pull ahead of the 260 sp 216, or the 260 sp 216 can pull ahead of even the 4890 while the sp 192 will pull ahead of the 4870. It just depends on the game but in general the rankings are as I listed above

 

[TurtleCrusher]

well the 4650 is the superior in pretty much every performance aspect. even if you take into account that it is advertising 64X5 ALU clusters as a 320 stream count, that's still at least twice as many as 9500GT.

The 4650 will sweep the floor with the 9500gt, read the anand review dude.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3405&p=7

benchmark is with a 4670, which has a 750 core clock compared to 600 for 4650, but even if you extrapolate the results from that the 4650 will eat the nvidia offerings below 9500

Was going to post exactly this. Nice.

 

[nostro]

thanks a lot guys, for the useful information. my main thing was to get the biggest bang for the buck at below $50 price range.